House Shows Spine

By a vote of 218 to 208, Rep. Dave Loebsack, his fellow Democrats, and two Republicans passed the supplemental bill which returns to the senate for a vote before going to the White House where it is expected that President Bush will veto it.

From AP

The House last night brushed aside weeks of angry White House rhetoric and veto threats to narrowly approve a $124 billion war spending bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March.

"How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?" asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. "How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough."

Unrealistic Expectations

From the Daily Iowan

"Recently, in a forum to discuss federal support for student financial aid, the vote of Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, for supplemental funding toward Iraq came under scrutiny. The UI Antiwar Committee was shut out of the meeting except for a statement to the freshman representative saying the vote raised "serious questions" about his true commitment to education. While pro-education sentiments are admirable, and this Editorial Board - like the majority of Americans - supports the measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq, we cannot support the way in which some antiwar protesters continually place unrealistic expectations upon lawmakers or believe immediate removal of troops will solve everything."

This is the future of our country speaking.

What is a "realistic expectation" to ending an unjust war? How many more soldiers, innocent civilians, and others have to be sacrificed for our moderation? The DI editorial staff has got it wrong. We need to be demanding of our lawmakers because they are the ones we elect to solve problems not exacerbate them.

This and there is a cause and effect to our defense spending. It is true that we are up to our eyeballs in national debt, but think about where most of the debt comes from and you'll quickly conclude it is due largely to building and maintaining the largest military arsenal ever assembled in the history of the world. This does have an effect on the tuition University of Iowa students pay. So why is it inappropriate to point out the cost of our military, again?

With regard to extracting ourselves from Iraq, I do agree with the DI on one issue, there is no good way to do it--by ourselves. And that has been the problem from the start. We failed to use diplomacy in an effective manner then and we have lost the all important political capital to do it now. The way forward in Iraq is to let regional diplomacy work, to offer aid to repair Iraq's infrastructure, and most importantly, to redeploy our troops as quickly as we can to where they best can be effective.

Supporting this is not too much to demand of our nation's leaders or those who are the future of our country.

A War on Education/An Education on War

From the Press-Citizen

A forum at the University of Iowa with Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, to discuss federal support of student financial aid was met with anti-war protesters saying Iraq war funding is hurting the education budget.

Members of the UI Anti-War Committee, who were kept out of the room except to make a statement, criticized Loebsack's vote for supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, saying it "raises serious questions about your true commitment to education."

"Even though there is not a draft, college students are feeling this war," UI junior and committee member David Goodner said afterward. "The war is pinching and squeezing the funding for education."

Anti-War Groups present Congressman Loebsack with Dubious Award

From the School for Moral Courage

IOWA CITY - Yesterday, Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 4:30 p.m., five members of national and local anti-war initiatives delivered a "Deed of Ownership" inscribed with Congressman David Loebsack's name to his Iowa City office. The was certificate in response to Loebsack's vote supporting the Supplemental Spending Bill passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A copy of the certificate can viewed here.
http://www.schoolformoralcourage.com/files/loebsack_certificate2.pdf

or by going to the School for Moral Courage home page
http://www.schoolformoralcourage.com/

All the nonpartisan national antiwar organizations and thousands of state and local groups urged a "No" vote on this legislation. Antiwar groups wanted Congress, instead to craft and pass a bill calling for immediate withdrawal of the troops with only funding sufficient for their safe return.

Members of Congress (all Democrats) who voted against the bill because it did not go far enough are Kucinich (OH), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Michaud (ME), McNulty (NV), Waters (CA) and Woolsey (CA).

The certificate states

"CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
The War in Iraq
In dubious recognition of your vote to continue funding The War in Iraq,
We, the undersigned, do bestow upon
U.S. Congressman, David Loebsack
Deed of Ownership
On this date, Thursday, March 29, 2007."

The certificate is endorsed by and includes the logos of national organizations, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans against the War, and Veterans for Peace as well as the Iowa Antiwar Coalition. This presentation is in concert with presentations of the certificate throughout the country to members of congress who voted for the bill.

This presentation is also one of several scheduled actions to end the war including "Walk Out on War," a state-wide workers/student strike day scheduled May 1.

Start With the End in Mind

I snipped this quote from the Century of the Comman Iowan: "[David] Loebsack quoted a recent blog post by David Sirota that quoted Saul Alinsky. Loebsack said, "start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be.”"

This is fine for Dave, he's accepted the job of politician. But for those of us who want the war to end or for social justice to prevail, we need to start, in Stephen Covey terms, "with the end in mind". It seems fruitless to be a progressive if you don't fight for progressive ideas. War is never a progressive idea, it is a failure of human decency and its wounds go far deeper than those who bear its scars.

I understand politics, politicians live and die by playing "let's make a deal"--trouble is, the cost of war is the children of our nation, the mothers and fathers of our next generation--this is nothing to raffle off.

Congress at Its Worst

They Drank the Kool-Aid

When will the Democratic leadership ever learn that they can't "win" by not living up to the expectations of the voters that put them in office? This is a sad day. It is doubly vexing given that the conference committee will likely take out all of the "offending" limitations so that the president signs the bill.

For those few Democratic Congress members who voted this down because it didn't go far enough to end the war, thank you. They are: Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Michael McNulty, Michael Michaud, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Lee Woolsey

"If you want peace, stop funding the war. If you want peace, stand for the truth," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

From Marketwatch

Setting a potential showdown with President Bush over the conduct of the Iraq war, House Democrats prevailed Friday in passing a $124.6 billion spending package that would set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government and withdrawal most troops from the country by next year.

The bill, which cleared largely along party lines in a 218-212 vote, would fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would require the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq by September 2008. The pullout would begin earlier if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks.

"I am proud that we have finally done something," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We will fund the troops, and we will also demand that Iraq stand up for Iraq's future and stop leaning on America alone."

President Bush and congressional Republicans argue that the bill would "micromanage" the war effort, while signaling insurgents in Iraq and enemies around the world that the United States will remain only for the short run.

'I am proud that we have finally done something. We will fund the troops, and we will also demand that Iraq stand up for Iraq's future and stop leaning on America alone.'
— Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill

"I believe there's only one outcome if we support all the strings and the handcuffs and that outcome is failure ... what does it say to them that we are not willing to stand behind our troops?" said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The vote was a triumph for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and top Democrats, who spent the week scrambling to shore up support for the package. Conservative and moderate Democrats worried about looking weak on defense expressed concerns about the bill's timelines, while the party's liberal wing complained that the measure wouldn't immediately end the war.

The bill's backers said that the package offered the best opportunity to begin winding down the war, arguing that a more aggressive approach would be doomed to failure and would effectively give Bush a green light to continue his policies.

"Don't sell short a vote in favor of this bill as if it were a mere political accommodation," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C.

With almost all Republicans set to vote against the package, Democrats could withstand few defections in order to prevail.

Republican leaders decried what they said were a litany of pork-barrel projects, subsidies and other measures added to the bill in order to buy support from wavering lawmakers. In addition to military funding items, the package included previously House-passed language to boost the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over two years.

The bill includes around $6 billion for hurricane relief, as well as millions in subsidies aimed at spinach growers and peanut farmers.

"What will our soldiers on the front lines think when they hear they've been sold for salmon fisheries and spinach growers?" asked Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

Democrats said Republicans were ignoring billions they added to the bill in order to ensure the troops have access to improved body armor and health care.

"If you vote against this, you're voting against the new armored vehicles which we need so badly," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. "If you vote against this bill, you'll be denying the troops better equipment and better protection."

The package will face a tough time in the Senate, where a number of Democrats have expressed reservations about a timetable. Bush has threatened to veto the bill if it makes it to his desk

This is Why It Matters

War is hell, so says the adage. But for the severely injured soldiers and the families of the soldiers who have been injured or have died, life is hell--this is another reason why not one more ounce of blood should be spilled to fight a war in Iraq.

http://www.schoolformoralcourage.com/michaelstory.html

http://monashaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/another-war-story.html

This is why Congress must not settle on a bill that does not get the troops out of Iraq.

Congress--Don't Drink the Kool-Aid

Here are six important reasons to oppose the supplemental spending bill (also known as the "Iraq Accountability Act") the House will be voting on:

1) It funds both the continued occupation of Iraq and Bush's escalation of the war.
2) It allows Bush to decide when U.S. troop withdrawal should begin -- possibly not until Sept. 1, 2008 -- a full 18 months from now.
3) It is silent on the question of attacking Iran. (Language requiring Congressional authorization for military action against Iran was removed from the bill.)
4) It allows an unspecified number of troops (10,000? 30,000? 50,000?) to remain in Iraq indefinitely.
5) It would bring spending on the Iraq war to more than $500 BILLION!
6) Most importantly, it guarantees that more of our brave troops will likely be injured and killed.

Call the Congressional Switchboard toll-free: 888-851-1879 (ask the operator to connect you to your Representative's office).

Deadlines and Commitments

The Press-Citizen reports Rep. Dave Loebsack said today he would vote in favor of an Iraq war spending bill that sets strict standards for deploying combat troops and a deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, to withdraw U.S. troops.

Gark: When he ran for election he said "The continued presence of U.S. troops near Iraq would only bring more instability to the region and place U.S. troops at constant risk from enemies of America. Complete disengagement from Iraq in the next year will serve to enhance America’s security." Sometimes it is hard to toe the party line.

Dave Loebsack -- Please Support the Lee Amendment

Progressive representatives Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey and our own Jerry Nadler proposed an amendment to the $93 billion supplemental appropriations bill for a fully-funded, systematic withdrawal of U.S. soldiers and military contractors from Iraq by December 31, 2007.

Grass roots groups are asking us to call our representatives and tell him or her to support the Lee Amendment to restrict Pentagon spending in Iraq to funding only the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors by the end of this year at the latest.

Call toll-free: 1-888-851-1879

Although this amendment has the staunch support of progressive allies in Congress, it faces a tough battle. If the Lee Amendment fails, we will urge our representatives vote NO vote on the supplemental appropriation in the coming weeks.

Following is the text of the Lee Amendment:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. _____, AS REPORTED
(SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 2007)
OFFERED BY MS. LEE OF CALIFORNIA
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ___. (a) Funds appropriated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense under any provision of law may be obligated and expended within the Republic of Iraq only for the purpose of providing for—

(1) the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Iraq performing contracts related to such Operation, pending and during the withdrawal of such members of the Armed Forces and such contractor personnel; and

(2) the safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq of all members of the Armed Forces and contractor personnel described in paragraph (1) pursuant to a plan that provides for completion of the withdrawal not later than December 31, 2007.

(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the United States to carry out diplomatic efforts or social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

Loebsack "Stock" Statement

REP. LOEBSACK STATES THAT, AS THE IRAQ WAR ENTERS ITS FIFTH YEAR, CONGRESS MUST CHANGE COURSE IN IRAQ

Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Loebsack stated that, as the Iraq war enters its fifth year today, it is long past time for Congress to take action to set a new direction on Iraq.

"In the November election, the American people spoke and they demanded a new direction in Iraq," said Rep. Loebsack. "The American people made clear that the country must turn away from the failed Iraq policies of the Bush Administration."

"As we enter the fifth year of the Iraq war, we must stop and take stock," Rep. Loebsack added. "Our involvement in Iraq has lasted longer than U.S. participation in World War II, World War I, the Korean War, or the Civil War. The war increasingly strains our military and has created a genuine crisis in U.S. troop readiness. As we begin the fifth year of the war, the price we have paid is high. More than 3,000 U.S. lives have been lost, more than 20,000 U.S. troops wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars spent."

"My highest priority is supporting our troops and ensuring their safety. I strongly oppose the President's plan for escalation and I am working with my colleagues to ensure a safe withdrawal of our troops from the region beginning immediately. We must end the President's open-ended commitment to the Iraq war and hold the administration accountable for its mismanagement of the war and subsequent failures," added Rep. Loebsack.

Gark--I would say that we have taken stock and we need to stop. Our Congress needs to act to end this war and appropriately fund the physical and mental health care needs of those veterans !

Loebsack Back from Iraq

Reported by the Gazette

Rep. U.S. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, returned from his two-day stay in Iraq last night with a sense that the American military and political mission to stabilize the war-torn country will fail.

Loebsack said he voted last week to support a non-binding resolution that disapproves of President Bush's decision to send more than 22,000 additional troops to Iraq because he believed the cause is futile and troops should be on their way home.``I was not convinced before (going to Iraq) that this (additional troops) would make a significant difference, if any difference,'' Loebsack said in a telephone interview.

``I think there is very little chance of this succeeding, judging from what I heard and saw.``It is pretty clear to me that the escalation -- what President Bush calls a surge -- it is pretty clear to me, and many people there, it is kind of a last shot at this thing.''

What would he say to President Bush if he could speak to him about his findings in Iraq? ``I would say as I have said before: `Mr. President, it is long past time. We need to disengage and do all we can to get the troops out of there by next year.''

House Makes a Stand...Sort of

The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182 with 17 Republicans and 2 Democrats breaking ranks.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The resolution resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Earlier Dave Loebsack said "Today, with my colleagues, I stand here in support of our brave men and women of the armed services as well as their families. We should honor their great commitment and sacrifices without hesitation.

The time has come to tell President Bush enough is enough! Last November, the American people spoke. They spoke loudly and clearly on a number of issues but none more passionately and forcefully than the war in Iraq. The American people, long before this debate this week, decided that the misadventure in Iraq must end.

Our troops have performed valiantly in Iraq. In a matter of just a few weeks, our troops removed from power a brutal dictator and began to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to construct a new political order. Our troops also have contributed mightily to the reconstruction and development of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure.

But over the course of this conflict, the mission of our troops has been transformed and now they find themselves in the middle of a civil war that involves not just two sides but almost innumerable factions in conflict with one another. What's worse is the continued presence of American troops in Iraq will likely only inflame the ongoing sectarian strife and create more, not fewer, enemies of America. The bottom line is that a continued presence of America troops will only exacerbate the multiple conflicts in Iraq.

While it was the Bush administration who initiated hostile actions in March of 2003, I believe it is now necessary for the Iraqi people to step up and assume responsibility for their future. We are at a point in this conflict where the only way forward includes a concerted and effective effort on the part of the Iraqi government to share both political power and the economic resources of their country.

What is also needed now more than ever is for this administration to reach out to our traditional allies and those in the region who have a significant stake in the future of Iraq. The Bush administration must do something it has been woefully reluctant to do. It must admit that it made a major strategic and foreign policy blunder when it invaded Iraq in the first place. I am willing to wager that such an admission would go some distance towards at least beginning to repair our relations with the rest of the world. And the improvement of our relations with our traditional allies beyond the British is a prerequisite to securing their help on Iraq.

In conclusion I call on my colleagues to support this
resolution today as a beginning of this chamber's efforts to protect the troops and bring our country's involvement in this war to an end."

Loebsack in the CPC

Well look who is in the Progressive Caucus fold.

Member List
Co-Chairs
Hon. Barbara Lee, Hon. Lynn Woolsey

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie, Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Hon. Xavier Becerra, Hon. Madeleine Bordallo, Hon. Robert Brady, Hon. Corrine Brown, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Hon. Michael Capuano, Hon. Julia Carson, Hon. Donna Christensen, Hon. Yvette Clarke, Hon. William “Lacy” Clay, Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, Hon. Steve Cohen, Hon. John Conyers, Hon. Elijah Cummings, Hon. Danny Davis, Hon. Peter DeFazio, Hon. Rosa DeLauro, Hon. Keith Ellison, Hon. Sam Farr, Hon. Chaska Fattah, Hon. Bob Filner, Hon. Barney Frank, Hon. Raul Grijalva, Hon. Luis Gutierrez, Hon. John Hall, Hon. Phil Hare, Hon. Maurice Hinchey, Hon. Mazie Hirono, Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hon. Hank Johnson, Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Hon. Marcy Kaptur, Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick, Hon. Dennis Kucinich, Hon. Tom Lantos, Hon. John Lewis, Hon. David Loebsack, Hon. Carolyn Maloney, Hon. Ed Markey, Hon. Jim McDermott, Hon. James McGovern, Hon. George Miller, Hon. Gwen Moore, Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Hon. John Olver, Hon. Ed Pastor, Hon. Donald Payne, Hon. Charles Rangel, Hon. Bobby Rush, Hon. Bernie Sanders, Hon. Jan Schakowsky, Hon. Jose Serrano, Hon. Louis Slaughter, Hon. Hilda Solis, Hon. Pete Stark, Hon. Bennie Thompson, Hon. John Tierney, Hon. Tom Udall, Hon. Nydia Velazquez, Hon. Maxine Waters, Hon. Diane Watson, Hon. Mel Watt, Hon. Henry Waxman, Hon. Peter Welch

Is Dave Loebsack Really PAC Man?

From The Hill
Many Democratic freshmen raised tens of thousands of special-interest dollars toward their reelection even before they were sworn in for the 110th Congress.

The numbers show that although they said during their campaigns that they would reform the “culture of corruption” in Washington, many quickly immersed themselves in the town’s lobbyist-dominated fundraising network to fill up their coffers and retire their debt.

Rep. David Loebsack (D-Iowa), who surprised former Rep. Jim Leach (R), has already raised $71,000.

About $60,000 of that came from political committees such as the American Bankers Association PAC, which gave him $5,000 on Dec. 18, and the National Association of Realtors PAC, which also wrote him a $5,000 check the same day.

Loebsack accepted the money from these rival groups, which are well-known members of Washington’s lobbying culture, despite his calls to reform that culture only a few months ago.

“The most recent Republican ethics scandal involving Jack Abramoff only underscores the need to reform our political system to ensure that elected officials maintain the people’s trust in their government,” Loebsack wrote on his campaign website. “So long as Washington continues with politics as usual, few of the changes we as a nation need to move us forward are likely to occur.”

Gabby Adler, Loebsack’s spokeswoman, said that her boss would not let the influx of contributions affect his focus on constituents.

“Since winning in November Congressman Loebsack has received an outpouring of support from a wide range of supportive individuals and organizations in Iowa,” she said. “The congressman appreciates this support and is currently focusing his attention on serving the people of Iowa’s 2nd congressional district because their interests are his No. 1 priority.”

Setting aside contributions from fellow Democrats’ campaign accounts, Loebsack accepted less than $40,000 in PAC contributions between Oct. 1 and Election Day. His receipt of such funds has increased by about 50 percent since he won.

Loebsack vows fight for low- income programs

Rep. Dave Loebsack said a firsthand look he gave facilities and programs for the working poor [in Iowa City] on Thursday will help him fight for continued funding for these kinds of programs.

Loebsack, D-Iowa, visited the Broadway Neighborhood Center, 2105 Broadway St. ‘‘I’ll do the best I can to advocate for these very organizations and the people they serve,’’ he said after meeting families and children there. Loebsack said it was important to meet the families and see the faces of those who benefit from facilities such as the Broadway Center, a community-based human service agency that provides educational and child-care programs.

‘‘It’s important so I can carry these messages to Washington,’’ Loebsack said.‘‘ I’ll do the best I can to fight for t h e s e p r o grams.’’

Many of the families using the center benefit from the Even Start Family Literacy Program, which provides funding for preschool education and adult literacy programs. ‘‘It’s really important to come to Iowa City,’’ Loebsack said, referring to meeting with low-income workers, ‘‘because people don’t think of Iowa City in these terms.’’

Brian Loring, executive director for the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, told Loebsack the center nearly lost all of its Even Start funding last year.
The center received $114,000 in fiscal 2007 for Even Start, down from $150,000 the previous year.

Loring said he fears the program will be eliminated and wanted Loebsack to see that support is needed.

Loebsack serves on the Education and Labor Committee in Congress.

Loebsack Co-sponsors Murtha Redeployment Resolution

H.J.Res.18 - Resolutions are non-binding

JOINT RESOLUTION

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $471 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 3,026 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shiite Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 61 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Sec. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Sec. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

More Dave & the War News

From the Des Moines Register

A freshman Democrat who campaigned against the war, Rep. Dave Loebsack of Mount Vernon, said that a plan for additional troops should be called an "escalation" rather than a "surge.""I think it goes in exactly the wrong direction of what we should be doing at this point - I believe we should begin to de-escalate," he said. Loebsack said he is just beginning to learn about a proposal by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., to use the congressional power of the purse to hold back money for the additional troops unless Congress agrees. Money would still flow for troops already in the field in Iraq. "That makes perfect sense to me," Loebsack said.

Loebsack on Armed Services Committee

Rep. Dave Loebsack was named yesterday to the Armed Services Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. The committee works on issues involving military personnel, military operations and counter terrorism initiatives.

Loebsack will serve on the committee with ten freshmen Congressmen.“During these tumultuous times, the brave service men and women from Iowa and across the country deserve respect, support and a plan for a safe return home,”

Loebsack said. “I will work hard to ensure every member of the armed services receives necessary training, protective equipment and adequate pay.”

Gark says: "But will he fight the President's plan to put 20,000 more soldiers lives on the line in Iraq?"

Where they stand on the "surge"

According to the Press-Citizen this morning (and this answers, in part, some of the questions raised about Dave Loebsack's current position about the war in earlier posts):

Freshman Rep. Dave Loebsack said Tuesday that he opposes President Bush's expected plan to send additional troops to Iraq to quell sectarian violence.

"It doesn't make any sense," the Iowa Democrat said in an interview. "I'm certainly quite opposed to it. The more troops we send, the more problems we have."

Instead of sending more troops to Iraq, Loebsack said he would like the president to "begin immediate disengagement" over the next year.

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin also opposes Bush's plan.

"My position is clear: There is nothing to be gained by escalating our involvement in Iraq and putting more of our brave young men and women in the midst of a civil war," he said. "The deteriorating situation in Iraq cannot be solved through military action. It requires a political solution."

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said he talked to Bush on Monday but wouldn't comment on his conversation.

Grassley said any additional U.S. troops would have to be accompanied by an agreement that the Iraqi prime minister would spend an additional $10 billion and commit more Iraqi forces.